General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
First, I'd agree with the primary observations that each edition is about having fun, and they represent what was viewed as most fun at that time. but I also think you can get into focuses for each edition. And I believe that every edition built on the presumption of what had been achieved before it.
1E was still in the "this is a new thing" mindset. The very idea of *being* a character in a fantasy story was the focus.
The initial core of 2E really did not move from there. But I agree with prior statements that over its life it became about settings. 2E presumed that *being* a character was now taken for granted and creating rich cultures and geographies for those characters to exist within was the focus. Clearly Greyhawk, and other settings, were already around, but the level of emphasis on both setting in general and diversity of settings was the frontier of 2E.
When 3E came around, settings were old hat. 3E took setting diversity for granted and dove in to making person, place, and thing be as mechanical distinct as possible. Again, 2E certainly went into this with kits and even total new classes for different settings. But for 3E it was the development frontier.
4E took the presumption of everything is detailed and assumed that groups would do with that as they wish. The design frontier was streamlining. I also think there is a bit of a disconnect in the process here because 4E is also the first edition ever to be developed with the presumption of digital tools and day to day electronic contact between publisher and players built in to the planning and marketing.
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
1e for me was all about imagination and breaking frontiers and defining my boundaries of fantasy.
2e was all about stories, rules that needed to be houseruled and some whacky memorable moments of DM fiat.
3e was about making the mechanics define the world, sometimes really well, other times not but overall some amazing and memorable campaigns to be had.
As 4e is still kind of new; defining it is a little more difficult and personal.
4e for me is about trying to make things playable, sometimes to the detriment of what makes sense, or in a way that feels forced, bowing to the gods of simplicity, balance or playability accordingly. The digital tools are amazing, but no edition has felt more disconnected to my imagination and what I want out of the game; so many moments of "great idea but why didn't they do it like this". There's some wonderful mechanics in there but the delivery and constricted gamespace seem to get in the way of letting these ideas and mechanics breathe. 4e has split our group dead down the middle in terms of opinion.
And this I suppose is what 4e in the end will be known as: the edition that polarized D&D.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
1E was about the adventures
2E was about the settings 3E was about the rules 4E is about (enabling) the DM.
That's my take. What do you think?
Cheers!
An interesting take on the first three, which I'd mostly tend to agree with.
I'm too new to 4e to take a stand on it, but I'm inclined to say that it may just be too early for anybody to define its legacy yet.
__________________ “My mind is a playground...I realize that for most people their mind isn’t a playground. It’s a torture chamber, which I figure is why so many people are afraid to be alone." -- Dave Sim
And this I suppose is what 4e in the end will be known as: the edition that polarized D&D.
Same as all the other editions before it, from 1e to 3e . The difference is that the Internet amplifies the most vocal critics, and it's nigh impossible to make an accurate assessment of any polarization based on facts. People like to complain. I'm German, I know what I'm talking about .
__________________ Pour le Rouse! Member of the Rouseketeers.
Since my knowledge is limited to 3E and 4E, I won't try to classify the earlier ones and focus only on 4E.
I think 4E is about the following things
- Supporting the DM, making his life easier.
- Teamplay and Tactics
- Balance between characters
- Focus on Gameplay (Playability or Usability)
- Electronic Support
I think the first and the last will remain relevant as "game focus" for D&D. A new edition that's harder to DM or that has less electronic support will struggle to find acceptance. While 4E rules specifically might help both aspects, I think a lot of it is just the "will" to do so.
Page 42 might be found important by many players and DMs, but I think the real work in making it DM friendly was done in actually giving suggestions to the DM how to handle his group and the game. What to look out for. It gives a DM a feeling of confidence that he's on the right track and that he can deal with the challenges of DMing.
One might argue that the 4E design is particularly friendly for electronic support thanks to its streamlined power system, feats and skill system, and I don't necessarily disagree. But I think similar support has always been possible for 3E, it was just never implemented as well. (And there is a lot of support for it anyway.) Of course, aspects like "digital only" dungeon/dragon might not be seen as crucial, but the option of digital versions will certainly remain relevant.
The other 3 will remain relevant in some form or another, but they have been in most RPGs. There are probably many ways to implement them via rules, 4E is just one take on that.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Same as all the other editions before it, from 1e to 3e . The difference is that the Internet amplifies the most vocal critics, and it's nigh impossible to make an accurate assessment of any polarization based on facts. People like to complain. I'm German, I know what I'm talking about .
I agree that the interwebs can bring out the worst and best in people, and certainly each new edition has been scrutinized mercilessly regardless of the internet. However, there are so many examples of polarization from third party support (and if you will the very existence of Pathfinder regardless of its future success or otherwise) to the anecdotal experiences of so many and in particular for me, my gaming group (three including myself like it - I will keep my DDI subscription for 4e lifespan - but three think it is a complete regression and disappointment). The whole edition wars thing is testament to this polarization, regardless of how much technology may have amplified this or not. It's still early days (a quarter to a fifth of its likely lifespan) but my prediction is that it has and will polarize players like no other edition that has gone before it and possibly even after it. See you in another thirty years over some of your nice German beer (I am an Aussie after all) and we'll reminisce.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
However, there are so many examples of polarization from third party support (and if you will the very existence of Pathfinder regardless of its future success or otherwise) to the anecdotal experiences of so many and in particular for me, my gaming group
The thing is, Pathfinder would've been impossible without the OGL which came into being in 2001 (?); licensed third-party support basically started with 3e. Before that, people who were dissatisfied with a new edition of D&D either kept playing the old (usually with lots of houserules) or switched to another RPG entirely, something which happened a lot among my gaming buddies when 3e came out (out of more than two dozen gamers I'd known personally, only three or four even tried 3e). And from what I've read, PF is basically an "officially houseruled and supported" 3.x, so to speak.
Looking back at the heated reactions back in 2000/2001 - and I was among the "2e grognards" back then - IMO you'd have to assign the label of polarization to 3e, too.
Regarding the beer, I'll settle for a milkshake or a cup of hot chocolate instead .
__________________ Pour le Rouse! Member of the Rouseketeers.
1E = The Adventure
2E = The Settings 3E = The Character 4E = The Encounter
IMO, 4E is most distinguished by a desire to make every encounter noteworthy, challenging, exciting, what have you. Powers are organized around the encounter. Hit points are gained and lost primarily on a per encounter basis. Adventures are written using the Delve format -- which emphasize the encounter above all else.
Looking back at the heated reactions back in 2000/2001 - and I was among the "2e grognards" back then - IMO you'd have to assign the label of polarization to 3e, too.
There was certainly polarization at 3E. IMO it wasn't nearly enough in terms of quantity to be in the same breath as current. If the standard of polarizarion is "was there any that can be pointed at", then the term becomes meaningless.
One of the complaints often fired at D20 was how much it dominated the market for a while creating both a "glut" and squeezing out devepment in other gaming systems. Yes, there was certainly polarization, but over unification was a much bigger complaint, so it is hard for me to see polarization as meeting the level of being a fitting label for 3E.
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
4E has rituals, use them, they're magic; Want to see the greatest thing you will ever see? then click; You can use “Earth” as a D&D setting; Origins of The Rouse; (look for it) The Rouse responds; (look for it) One can appreciate both old and new D&D.
Well, with a slight twist on the format, for me...
OD&D is about adventures
1E is about expansion (FR, DL); BECMI D&D is about pick-up-&-play
2E is about consistency, while continuing expansion (DS, PS, SJ, etc.)
3.XE is about clarification, while continuing consistency (d20) & expansion (Eberron, OGL)
4E is about unity, while continuing clarification, consistency, & expansion, and regaining the pick-up-&-play format
I had to include OD&D & BECMI D&D since they played a significant role in gaming as well.
IMO, OD&D laid the conceptual foundations: a band of adventurers exploring the unknown and fighting monsters.
BECMI D&D & 1E expanded on that basis; BECMI more or less kept things down to a minimum (3 ALs, simple equipment list, race & class combined into class, etc.), while 1E expanded considerably (9 ALs, seperation of race & class, % scores, new settings, etc.).
2E took the framework of 1E and made things consistent, yet familiar. It really wasn't a big leap from 1E to 2E at all, though it unified some systems (rather than, IMO, be a hodge-podge of slapped-together mechanics held together by duct tape; they were welded together now).
3.XE upped the consistency factor moreso ala d20: dice rolls had a direct, visible result instead of a conditional result (and not the "roll low = good in some cases, roll high = good in other cases" of previous editions). A clear system for magic item creation that players may be willing to use was introduced (instead of the harsh sacrifice of previous editions). Building things (monsters, NPCs, etc.) had a clear system instead of being a random jumble of numbers. And it really took the first steps of "play whatever you want" for players: no more class restrictions & level limits based on race, a single XP progression chart, etc.
All of the prior editions, IMHO, tried to claim/maintain some degree of realism with its fantasy element: those "save or die" effects, the weapon modifiers against certain types of armor, etc.
4E, as far as I can tell, continues 3E's trend, but regains the pick-up-&-play feel of older editions (esp. for me, the feel of BECMI D&D). And, I think one of the ways it does this is by embracing the arbitrary aspect of the game, and getting away from trying to replicate realism: no more "save or die", no more slow progression of healing, etc.
And, 4E evens the playing field when it comes to characters. In previous editions, fighters were the realm of beginning players—rather straightforward, and no concerns about how your abilities work. Magic use, and to a certain degree skill use, was a bit more "advanced" level of play (because it needed a certain level of awareness of those options during game play—no good playing a thief if you didn't think to check for traps, sneak, or the like). The good old fighter was the "kiddie table" of the classes, if you will.
Now all classes are the same level of ability to play (though the psion class threatens to change that, from what I can tell). No more "kiddie table classes."
__________________ Ageless, Faceless, Gender-Neutral, Culturally-Ambiguous Adventure Person
I think 4E is about getting back to the team/social gathering concept where 3E was more about "solo" characters/building, and with solid reason. When 3E came out MMORPGs and even probably CCGs weren't as big. There's a personal disconnect there that table top RPGs can now take advantage of that wasn't so prevalent before. It's just adjusting the niche.
IMHO,
OD&D is about survival and adventure in a Pulp Fantasy world.
Classic D&D is about the struggle for power and immortality in the world of Medieval Romances.
1st Edition AD&D is about exploration and treasure seeking in a Swords & Sorcery world.
2nd Edition is about character development in worlds of Epic Fantasy.
3rd Edition is about developing personal powers in a world of Fantasy Super-Heroes.
4th Edition is about combat in a world of Hong Kong Action Movies.
This.
Also:
1e is about creating adventures
2e is about creating setting 3e is about creating characters 4e is about creating battlefields (as is Iron Heroes, not surprisingly)
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
1E and 2E where editions I didn't play. 3E was about making characters in a open, plausible world. 4E is about making balanced characters for combat.
__________________ Everything about RPGs is subjective, so everything I say about them is I my opinion and not hard facts
Having a backstory is good. Using this backstory in game is better. And for that you need background skills.
4E, the game where you play HSMFOS
Heroic
Only good, or at least unaligned adventurers are supported and no monster you can fight is good aligned.
Super-
The PCs become masters in any skill automatically and it is impossible for them to be bad at a mundane task
Mutants
Compared to NPCs of the same strength, PCs poses a ungodly amount of HP and can withstand huge mountains of punishment. That or they can spontaneously regenerate wounds.
From Outer Space
Yet despite no matter how powerful the PCs become, they can never do anything special what the "natives" (=NPCs) can do like animating a skeleton.
The most telling part about this thread is the treatment which certain participants afford 4th Edition. I find it very interesting that the people who enjoy (and have experience) playing 4e think it's about more than just combat, while the people who dislike 4e keep trying to push the idea that it's all about combat. Very interesting.
__________________ Tales from the Rusty Dragon - A 4th Edition Conversion Blog Covering Paizo's Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path
Last edited by Dannager; 31st October 2009 at 01:23 AM..
. The difference is that the Internet amplifies the most vocal critics, and it's nigh impossible to make an accurate assessment of any polarization based on facts. People like to complain. I'm German, I know what I'm talking about 
Pour le Rouse! 
4E has rituals, use them, they're magic;
Want to see the greatest thing you will ever see? then 
You can use “Earth” as a D&D 
The Rouse 
One can appreciate both old and new D&D.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
